Well we have the Muslims in Iraq playing tit-for-tat, blowing away Sunni or Shiite rivals a couple dozen at a time.  Iraqis killing fellow Iraqis several dozen a day.

And the Moslems in Gaza are quite shocked that Israel has responded ruthlessly to their state-sponsored kidnapping of an Israeli soldier.  They women have now donned their ridiculous black masks to start a female "Martyr's brigade".  No doubt they are also shooting their pistols in the air and uulating wildly.  (By the way, if a Moslem woman is martyred in a jihadi act, what does she get?  I mean, the guys get 72 virgins)

Meanwhile the Moslems in Darfur are still going at it, Arab against Black.  of course the Black Moslems will not tell you that they started the whole thing with their rebellion.  (Note I am not advocating genocide, just clarifying that if you start a war you better know what you are up against... a familiar topic of late).

In other news, Moslem Chechen leader Shamil Basayev got himself vaporized today as a truck in his convoy made a big ka-bang.  Somebody order up another 72 virgins, please.


But just remember... none of their behavior is about religion of course.  That would be a misconception. ;D

Statistically least likely to kill you if you disagree with their beliefs:
a. Atheists/Agnostics
b. Satanists/Occultists of various types.

BTW, the communist dictatorship do not count as atheist. All they did was abolish the old religions and deify their own leaders, Lenin, Stailin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Il Sung/Kim Jung Il, etc.

Occasionally I like to mention something about Muslimgauze--

I bought around 30 CDs in the 90s by this guy Bryn Jones who recorded under the name Muslimgauze. His music was blend of Middle Eastern percussion techniques, electronica, techno, minimalism, and sound collages. What made Jones controversial was he dedicated all his recordings (and he released about 100 in a 17 year career, and more Muslimgauze is still coming out years after his death) to the PLO, Hamas, Hezbollah, and such Muslim/Arab political groups (or "terrorist" groups some would say). Israel and the U.S. got the bulk of his political wrath. Furthermore, all his titles pertained to Islamic culture and political issues.  Jones never travelled from his native Britain to the Middle East because he morally objected to touring in occupied lands. Jones never used lyrics, just instrumental themes, occasionally recordings from Arab media. In a rare interview, the interviewer assumed Jones converted to Islam because he was always raging about it via his music. Jones replied, "I am non-religious. I think religion is the cause of too much trouble in the world." But, Bryn, you're always on about...I dunno, even his fans never figured him out!  Strange guy. He died suddenly of an acute blood infection in January, 1999, at the age of 38. I would have been interested to hear his musical comments on 9/11 and the Iraq war
!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslimgauze
http://pretentious.net/Muslimgauze/

Today there were synchronized deadly attachs on the Indian public transit system, as well as grenade attacks on civilians in Kashmir.  In both cases Moslem "militants" claimed credit.

But again I remind you, none of this has anything to do with religion.  This stuff is happening in India, Kashmir, Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, Indonesia, Britain, Spain, Russia (Chechnya), Uzbekistan, Darfur.  Victims are Christian, Jew, Hindu, Atheist, and even Moslem.

But it is simply a coincidence that all this mayhem happens at the hands of devout Moslems.  Really... this has nothing to do with Islam or the supporters of it.  It is simply a coincidence.

;D ;D ;D

Today there were synchronized deadly attachs on the Indian public transit system, as well as grenade attacks on civilians in Kashmir.  In both cases Moslem "militants" claimed credit.

But again I remind you, none of this has anything to do with religion.  This stuff is happening in India, Kashmir, Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, Indonesia, Britain, Spain, Russia (Chechnya), Uzbekistan, Darfur.  Victims are Christian, Jew, Hindu, Atheist, and even Moslem.

But it is simply a coincidence that all this mayhem happens at the hands of devout Moslems.  Really... this has nothing to do with Islam or the supporters of it.  It is simply a coincidence.

;D ;D ;D


;D

All a big mix up right.

It couldn't be that this religion has been inciting hatred globally for as long as any of us have been alive?

It couldn't be that the root causes of so many of the conflicts we see in the world today revolve around this religion.

You know something interesting I see...

I've seen Blacks, Jews, Hinduhs, Sikhs and Catholics persecuted against.. yet in the vast vast vast majority of cases, I've never seen or heard of any of them going off and killing a load of civilians. (With the exception of the IRA and let's face it, they're a political group) However, every time these Islamic nuts decide something is offensive, somebody ends up dead.

Hmmmm, must suck being on the end of so much bad press.  ;D

You Know There's Been Yet Another Muslim Bombing When:

...you hear a co-worker from three cubicles away groaning "Freakin' Amish at it again, huh?", followed by other co-workers speculating on whether it was the Mennonites trying to pin it on the Amish, or vice versa.

i'm always at a loss as to what to do with something like this when the israelis and the west kill with so much greater efficiency than the muslims do. yes, the muslims are adept at doing something for shock value -- strapping on a bomb and running into a mosque, say -- but when it comes to, say, depriving a whole mass population of power and water like the israelis are doing to the palestinians, or waging a wholesale war with modern industrial weapons against a country that's for all intents and purposes without a military, like the republicans just did to iraq to the tune of at least 30,000 innocent dead -- well, you really can't beat western firepower for really creating a bloodbath.

what's going on in iraq right now is a civil war; when we had one, we killed several hundred thousand of our own. it wasn't because we were christian. so i'm at a loss as to what the point here might be.

i'm always at a loss as to what to do with something like this when the israelis and the west kill with so much greater efficiency than the muslims do. yes, the muslims are adept at doing something for shock value -- strapping on a bomb and running into a mosque, say -- but when it comes to, say, depriving a whole mass population of power and water like the israelis are doing to the palestinians, or waging a wholesale war with modern industrial weapons against a country that's for all intents and purposes without a military, like the republicans just did to iraq to the tune of at least 30,000 innocent dead -- well, you really can't beat western firepower for really creating a bloodbath.

what's going on in iraq right now is a civil war; when we had one, we killed several hundred thousand of our own. it wasn't because we were christian. so i'm at a loss as to what the point here might be.


You already see the point.  In the American Civil War, North and South fought regardless of religion but rather for other reasons.  After it was all fought out it was over.  In the United States and most civilized countries, if you go into a crowd and blow up a bunch of people you are not celebrated as a hero.  In the Moslem world they take up a collection at the Mosque to reward the "martyr's" family.

In Iraq, I will not comment on whether our invasion was justified or not.  But it was not due to religion else we would be dropping bombs everywhere on the planet.  When a small minority of our soldiers commit a ghastly crime, they are put on trial and it is a national shame, as it should be.  Our soldiers are not shouting "Dominis Vobiscum" when they go to battle.  We do not have ministers or Rabbis celebrating scum like those guys who did the rape/murder crime.

At Mi Lai, the soldiers were vilified and put on trial, several convicted.  Sadly Nixo pardoned Calley.  But he has lived his life as a pariah, not as a hero.  We celebrated the two soldiers who risked their lives to stop the Mi Lai massacre and brought it to light.

Now in , Kashmir, Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, Indonesia, Britain, Spain, Russia (Chechnya), Uzbekistan, Darfur, New York City, and Somerset PA, we have individuals deliberately and with cold calculation and high finances murdering innocent people at random.  And of course we have the geniuses down there in Miami. They are celebrated by burkha-wearing, uulating women and ridiculous men lining up to get their bounty of 82 virgins.  The shoult "Allah Akbar" as they blow up innocents, Jew, Moslem, Eastern, and Gentile alike.  They are heroes to their kind.

And what, exactly are their kind?  They are Arab, Brit, Black, Brown, and so on.  They are not linked by race.  It is not a racist movement.  The sole attribute linking all of these people is their religion.  They kill in the name of Allah.  They preach, support, and wage "jihad".

The guys down in Miami did not say "Hey we are black and we are oppressed so we want to start a war".  Nope.  They said "wa want to wage jihad for Allah".

But don't get me wrong.  I do not want anybody here to think that these people do these things because they are Moslems.  That would be a misunderstanding.

;D ;D ;D


ps: The Palestinian Authority endorsed and supported the "moslem militants" that kidnapped that Israeli soldiier.  Now mind you I am no fan of Israel.  But kidnapping the soldier was an act of war on the part of the Palestinian Authority, and war is what they got.  And if the population of Palestine continues to support its war-mongering government, it can expect more war and more misery.

It is amazing.  The Palestinians kidnap an Israeli soldier, hold him for ransom, and then wonder why Israel retaliates.  ;D

Muslim leaders tell Muslim devotees who to hate and the devotees obey.

Republican leaders tell Americans who to hate and they obey.

Both Muslim leaders and Republican leaders like the same thing: undemocratic authority and unquestioning subserviance. America is suffering from the same authoritarian pathology as those militant Muslim sects. America has its military to do the bombing and killing the Muslims require terrorists to carry out. The former claims war is in defense of democracy, the latter claims jihad in defense of Allah. Both are full of
sh1t.

When the military can't get sane people to sign up for the Iraq war, they start to take 19-year-old skinheads and 42-year-old militia white separitist types.

It's all authoritarianism, and it's all deadly.

well, there's always the counterexample of the northern ireland conflict, which was based on a little snit regarding different denominations of christianity, but in general western societies have been getting more secular and so tell a different set of lies to get their people to go along with wars -- usually this uneasy pair of generalizations that 1. the target population needs to be "liberated" and 2. they're all incorrigible and need to die. it's puzzling to me that this works, but on the other hand the west and israel has the luxury of being able to wage wars largely without being retaliated against in any kind of symmetrical way so it's really quite easy and exciting for them and the rationalizations can be pretty facile. the west doesn't seem to mind going to war, finds it rather enjoyable and does it quite often. i watch t.v. and talk to people who support the war and the subtext is that it's an action adventure, a chance to indulge in myths of exceptionalism and heroism, and doesn't have very many consequences. muslims can count on there being a good chance they'll be wiped out in combat so the rationalizations needed to get them on the field have to be a lot more like they were in the old days, when war was actually bloody -- you know, you're not an individual but part of a religious collective and your immortal soul wlll go to heaven and so forth.

anyway, i hear a lot of talk among war supporters that we're losing because we're not tough enough on the arab civilian population, that we need to carpet bomb it and turn it into glass and if it weren't for the damn liberals we'd do just that. if that's better than holding forth suicide  bombers as martyrs, i'm not exactly sure why. seems about as revolting at best, if you ask me.

The American Civil War was rather unique in world history as to how it ended.

IN the last months of the war, one Southern Army after another was cut off and the laders faced a decision, surrender and hope that the North would be as generous as they stated, or dissolve and turn into a guerrilla army.  In every case, the Southern Generals decided to surrender and end the fighting.  Even the President, Jefferson Davis thought it was better to dissolve the Government and go into exile then to continue fighting in an underground movement.

Just about the only major Guerilla movement of the Reconstruction era was the KKK.  But their struggle at the time was more against the "Carpetbaggers", and even the founders and leaders of the movement orded them dissolved when they thought they were getting "to violent".  (the KKK of the 20th century was a more recent construction, and only shares the name of the 19th century organization).

In modern conflicts, unless the opposition is totally crushed, it tends to move underground.  And often when they are underground they splinter into dozens of factions, often fighting against each other as much as those they are supposed to be fighting in the first place.  And the irony is that this serves to cause even more unrest.  This often results in even more recruits willing to join, since they want to see an end to the fighting, and will support whoever they think has the best choice to win (or will join a group simply to oppose another group).

The political structure in Iraq right now is a combination of post Soviet Russia, and post Soviet occupied Afganistan.  For the first time in a generation, the people of Iraq are free to express themselves.  And many of them simply do not know how to do that.  After living their entire lives in a totalitarian state where conscription and allegiance to the state were mandatory, they now have the ability to do what they want.  And just like in Russia, many are turning to groups that promise to "put order" back into their lives.  And the majority Shi'ia are finally free to expressess themselves after 40 years of Sunni domination.

So you have groups of Sunni, trying to band together and put the Shi'ia "back in their place".  You have groups of Shi'ia banding together to "get back" at the Sunni.  Then you have other groups that have their own agenda, and any in-fighting is good to them, since it gives them the chance to carve out their own mini-feudal society.

Myself, I have no problem of leaving Iraq, if every other country will do the same.  That means that all the people from countries like Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Jordan, and Syria also get out and let Iraq settle it's own problems.  But I do not see that happening.  Because most of those countries (Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia) do not want to see a strong and unified Iraq.  It is in their self interest to see them fighting themselves.

And don't forget, traditionally Iraq has not been a very good neighbor.  If I was Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or Israel I would be worried about a strong Iraq.  Each of these countries has been attacked without provocation, and it is in the interest of each of these countries to have them fighting themselves instead of fighting them.

This is similar to how a lot of countries in Europe were very cautious about Germany unifying, and how many countries in Eastern Asia would feel if Japan ever started to re-arm itself more heavily then it is now.

the west and Israel has the luxury of being able to wage wars largely without being retaliated against in any kind of symmetrical way so it's really quite easy and exciting for them and the rationalizations can be pretty facile. the west doesn't seem to mind going to war, finds it rather enjoyable and does it quite often. better than holding forth suicide  bombers as martyrs, I'm not exactly sure why. seems about as revolting at best

BING-O! You're spot-on!

One of the most unconscionable things Bush did (aside from sending our soldiers to die for oil) was to forbid the photographs of all those flag-draped coffins. Hey, if you don't see it, it's not real, right? The Bushies lied about all the costs--financial, political, sociological, and vital--of waging this terrible war. The neo-cons want World War III. They want endless war to destabilize the oil-rich Middle East and to oblige American citizens to fall in line for fascism. The war has nothing to do with the liberation of Iraq and everything to do with oppression of everybody else. Not one prominant conservative (as defined prior to Reagan) favors this war. American conservatism is dying as American fascism takes over. Conservatives want to be secure, not afraid. All the Bushies do is fear monger. Conservatives want small government. The Bushies give you bigger government than you had under Clinton--more onerous authority and more debt. This started under Reagan. Reagan was a fascist, not a conservative. Under Reagan government grew stupendously. The only place government shrunk was in the social services sector. This continues under Bush.

The conservatives loved Reagan because the facts of his reign were not clear. Today they are. Reagan stood for kleptocratic fiscal policy and for government prying into private citizens' personal lives. Bush has magnified these fascist tenets. Unlike Reagan, Bush is a crummy salesman. The one aspect of sociopathy Bush lacks is the silky charm, which Reagan had in spades. Reagan could sell a desert to a fish--and that's a good metaphor for what he did. Perhaps two-thirds of the population bought into Reagan's lies. Even people who voted for Carter and Mondale gave Reagan credit. Thus it was easy for the Reaganistas to manufacture consent. The only people who support Bush are in that 30% of any population that wants a daddy figure and wants to follow blindly. Bush has gained power in the past two elections with a combination of deceit and force. His successor may have to use force alone. Part of the great Reagan swindle was moving the political center from the center to the center-right. The Dems let themselves get dragged along and became faux Republicans.

So the anti-Muslim rhetoric is just part of the rightwing media propaganda spin. It is an astonishingly unsophisticated analysis of world affairs and bereft of credible political science. It is not quite true to say our general population is ready for fascism. What is happening is the fascists have taken control of politics, media, and cultural definition. From there they can impose an Orwellian constriction of thought upon the people. Allow no debate. Take it as granted that the Muslims are the problem, that box-cutter wielding terrorists are responsible for 9/11, and that anybody who questions the election results is a nutjob. In other words, be Sean Hannity, and if you can't be a true-believer like Hannity or O'Reilly, be a nasty cynic like Chris Matthews or Dennis Miller and repeat the same garbage.  If you don't, you're fired, just like Phil Donahue...and it matters not how high your ratings are.

More Orwellian thought constriction: If you don't hate the Muslims, you must favor terrorism.
That is STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID!!!
I hate to see anybody getting blown up, whether the blower-upper is an Islamic jihadist or an American soldier.
All of our problems with Islam are homespun. They are a result of our foreign policy over the past six decades. I'm not an Arab, couldn't be one if I tried. I'm not a Muslim either. I'm not religious, but if I was going to join a religion, it sure as hell wouldn't be Islam. I'm a red-white-and-blue American patriot. I don't want to be anything else. However, patriotism and nationalism are not one and the same thing if you are an American.
As Gulf War II was getting underway, some African-Americans were saying, "Iraq never called me n*gg*r." I sympathize. I'm more concerned with solving the social and political injustices within our own nation than with shaking my fist at whatever foreign country George Bush decides to bully.

"Those pesky Muslims," yeah let's make our bigotry witty and cute like P.J. O'Rourke does. Sorry, I don't dig it. There is a proverbial shotgun pointed between our collective myopic American eyes, too bad we can't see far enough to realize it is not a Muslim finger on the trigger!

"Those pesky Muslims," yeah let's make our bigotry witty and cute like P.J. O'Rourke does. Sorry, I don't dig it. There is a proverbial shotgun pointed between our collective myopic American eyes, too bad we can't see far enough to realize it is not a Muslim finger on the trigger!


I agree.  I was insentitive to pesky people everywhere to compare them to the Modlem mainstream.

"Pesky" people are just annoying.  Whereas Moslem militants are wreaking mayhem on every continent, in every hemisphere.  And oddly most fo the people that they are killing in the name of their beloved Muhammad are fellow Moslems.  You see, these people are not biig enough to get past their own petty personal vendettas and "imam politics" to form a productive alliance.  So yes they occasionally lob a bomb into a Jewish deli or a Christian dance club, but mainly they end up beheading, blowing up, or savaging fellow Moslems.  What a bunch of maroons.

You are dangerous Maxwell.  While I fully respect your opinion as to whether or not US policy is wrong, if at any time you think that somehow the Moslem militants are somehow downtrodden and subjugated by the west you had better wake up.  They are making mayhem EVERYWHERE and must be dealt with RUTHLESSLY.  Of course, peaceful Moslems who do not terrorize, who do not fund terror, and who do not offer safe harbor to terrorists, must be respected just like anybody else.  And it IS about Islam.  Too many of them are bombing the hell out of innocent people and shouting Allah Akbar.  it is not just the odd Timothy Mcveigh.  It is a culture of mayhem and the major powers (US, Russia, China) need to unite to put the  hammer down.

In fact I strongly suspect that the Chinese have put the hammer down BIG TIME,  You don't hear much about islamic terrorism in China.  Because the Moslem "militants" know that the central government would hand them their azzes in a hat and make their widows pay for the ammo.  Brute force is all that these people seem to respond to and it is how Saddam kept them in tow, and it is how Assad in Syria (and his Dad previously) does.  And it is how the former Soviet Union kept them in check. They do not like freedom.  Give them freedom and they start mayhem.

problem is, the west -- well, jews and christians -- have been dealing ruthlessly with muslims since at least the 1950s. if it was gonna work it seems like it would have worked by now.

you're declaring that these damn muslims are the worst inscrutable purveyors of random psychotic violence since dr. evil, but there's nothing novel about this perspective. before it was the muslims in general it was the lebanese, the egyptians, the palestinians -- also the sandinistas, the rebels in el salvador and the "communist menace" in central and south america -- and before that, it was the iranians, and before that the east timorese, the cambodians, the vietnamese, the cubans, north koreans. this stereotype of the beady-eyed enemy who can't be reasoned with and is inscrutably other than human is the oldest trick in the book, and more often than not it's the product of excvessive receptivity to militarist government propaganda. in other words, the powers-that-be cook up a foreign policy that means they have to intercede somewhere, then they trot out the same dog-and-pony show but change the proper nouns. ever notice how similar all these enemies are when they're protrayed in the news or in the movies? the cubans, the central american communists, the vietnamese, they're all short, dark, and they die like movie extras because they're semi-intelligent subhumans.

the whole anti-muslim freakout going on today is the different story, same moral. they'll fight this war for as long as they want to, then when they don't want it anymore we'll stop hearing about muslims so much and we'll wonder if they were ever really that much of a problem, just like the cubans and the vietnamese. who worries about nicaragua anymore? you know what i mean? but at the same time some new enemy will pop up quick enough that we won't have time to ever sit down and wonder whatever happened to those pesky inscrutable muslims, or why we're not worried about it so much anymore.

You are dangerous Maxwell.  While I fully respect your opinion as to whether or not US policy is wrong, if at any time you think that somehow the Moslem militants are somehow downtrodden and subjugated by the west you had better wake up.  They are making mayhem EVERYWHERE and must be dealt with RUTHLESSLY.  Of course, peaceful Moslems who do not terrorize, who do not fund terror, and who do not offer safe harbor to terrorists, must be respected just like anybody else.  And it IS about Islam.  Too many of them are bombing the hell out of innocent people and shouting Allah Akbar.  it is not just the odd Timothy Mcveigh.  It is a culture of mayhem and the major powers (US, Russia, China) need to unite to put the  hammer down.

In fact I strongly suspect that the Chinese have put the hammer down BIG TIME,  You don't hear much about islamic terrorism in China.  Because the Moslem "militants" know that the central government would hand them their azzes in a hat and make their widows pay for the ammo.  Brute force is all that these people seem to respond to and it is how Saddam kept them in tow, and it is how Assad in Syria (and his Dad previously) does.  And it is how the former Soviet Union kept them in check. They do not like freedom.  Give them freedom and they start mayhem.

Dangerous? You give me way to much credit! I don't believe in killing people, only in the free expression of ideas. Fascist governments of the past needed to worry about freedom of speech. Our fascist government took Orwell's 1984 as a playbook not a warning: destroy liberal arts education. Cow mass media into submission. Cow universities into submission.  Constrict the flow of ideas in educational institutions and mass media. Once you have accomplished this, contrary ideas don't matter anymore.
(Maoist China achieved this 50 years ago, and it continues even as "Maoist China" recedes further and further into the past.)
What people forget about Orwell's dystopia is in Airstrip One, the vast majority of people were not monitored by the government. The proles did not count because they no longer had the capacity to "think outside the box," as the cliche goes. Once you eliminate the capacity for critical thought, you eliminate the person's ability contradict the rhetoric of authority. Feudalism succeeded for hundreds of years because peasants were illiterate and the church controlled the flow of information. The medieval church served only the interests of the landed nobility.
Today "capital" has replaced "land-holding" as aristocratic heritage. People often ask why Mexico is so poor. Mexico is not poor. There is fabulous wealth in Mexico, however, about 20 families control all of it. There are about the same number of families in America (including the Bushes) who want the same deal, they are the families that are trying to kill the estate tax. The United States is becoming Mexico at the hands of accumulated stateless capital controlled by these families. If the estate tax gets axed, it'll be one giant leap ahead for the American aristocracy, and a 700 year leap backward for the rest of us, including YOU.
What is religion in America today? Christianity? No. It is television. All commercial television is detrimental to critical thinking skills. PBS as an alternative to commercial TV has been destroyed by the fascist government behest of the American aristocracy. There no longer is a direct corollary to the medieval church. There was no such thing as the "consumer economy" in the thirteenth century. Peasants didn't buy stuff. However, the church did form the basis of medieval thought. The church told the peasants what to think about what and whatever was not on the church's agenda did not get thought about. That is what we see with commercial television.  A few Americans foresaw this phenomenon in the 1960s and '70s, but they were called kooks. Turns out they were right. The church planted a primal fear of hell in every peasant born. Only your loyalty to the church could save you from hell. The fascists in our society do the same thing: everywhere there are terrorists, illegal aliens, and child molestors out to get you and your family. The Republican party is your only hope for salvation. Television has become incredibly adept at selling this idea in the past ten years.
Back to 1984...some people had to be watched. Winston Smith had to be watched because he had access to information. He could see the government's lies. 1984 readers often perceive Smith as an actual threat to Big Brother. They mistakenly read irony into Smith's statement "Greetings from a dead man." Once Smith acknowledges the government's lies to himself, he knows he is defective and his fate is sealed. There were Winston Smiths all over Airstrip One and they all met the same fate. Their critical thinking skills got corrected and they all came to love Big Brother. Again, readers misunderstand the end of the novel. When Orwell says "(Smith) loved Big Brother," it is not a disingenuous love nor an ironic love. It is a true love in the uncritical, unquestioning manner of the peasant supplicant's love for his "God."
This is what your fascist government is driving at when they exalt political leaders such as Reagan and Dubya as your "saviors."

I speculated about this as a teenager 20 years ago, but I thought it could never happen in my lifetime. Now I'm not so sure!

BTW, I would only be dangerous if I believed in violence as a political course of action. If I started promoting violence on every discussion board I could, eventually I would get a visit from the authorities.  The question for me is how long I can maintain my conviction that violence is NOT a useful political course of action...
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/11/bom.gif :o

Hot off the wires...

In Darfur, while the Black Muslims are not busy rebelling and fighting with the Arab Muslims, they are busy raping and torturing the women of rival Black Muslim tribes.

Note the absence of Israeli, American, Brit, Aussie, Russian, french or any "Western" manipulation or repression. (Insert wistfully hopeful reason to blame this on The West here________________________________)

Black versus White, Black versus Black, white verus white.  it is not a "race thing".  The common thread to this mayhem, as we also see in India, Kashmir, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Russia, Chechnya, Lebanon, Gaza, Indonesia, Somalia, Jordan, Britain, Spain is Islamic "Militancy".

But not China.  We can learn from them in how to suppress bloodthirsty militants.


------------------------------------------------------------------
KHARTOUM (Reuters) - Rape, killing and looting are increasing as tribal tensions escalate in Sudan's troubled Darfur province, the        United Nations' top envoy to the country said on Wednesday, despite a peace deal he had helped broker.

U.N. envoy Jan Pronk described an attack by a rebel faction led by Abdel Wahed Mohammed al-Nur, whose members mostly come from the Fur tribe, on a group of women refugees to illustrate his point.

"They were tied to a tree, beaten, forced to eat donkey dung, raped in turn for three days by 30 men who had accused the women of espionage because they were married to Zaghawa men," Pronk told reporters, referring to the Zaghawa tribe.

"That means civilians are being attacked and the tension becomes of a tribal character. That is especially what we wanted to stop with the peace agreement," Pronk added.

Pronk said the account had not been verified, but that the victims should be believed. A recent U.N. report also cites rising tribal tensions in some refugee camps.

Representatives for Nur, who leads a splinter faction of the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA), could not immediately be reached for comment.

In May, the mainstream SLA faction led by Minni Arcua Minnawi signed a peace deal with the Khartoum government, but the agreement has been widely ignored. Nur's rebel group and the smaller Justice and Equality Movement did not sign the deal.

Minnawi is from the minority Zaghawa tribe. A U.N. report on Sunday cited witnesses alleging that Minnawi troops had raped and killed women from the Fur tribe. Minnawi denies this.

The U.N. has said the rebel groups have begun to fight each other, with the Sudanese military apparently supporting Minnawi's faction.

Both the Fur and the Zaghawa tribes are African, not Arab. Non-Arab rebels took up arms against the Khartoum government in early 2003 accusing it of neglect and monopolizing power.

Khartoum responded by arming mostly Arab militias, known as the Janjaweed, who stand accused of a widespread campaign of looting, killing and burning in non-Arab villages.

Tens of thousands have died in the violence and 2.5 million people forced into camps.

Earlier on Wednesday, U.N. humanitarian relief coordinator Jan Egeland said it was "heartbreaking" that the SLA rebel groups had adopted the Janjaweed's methods.

Sudan has rejected U.N. transition in Darfur likening it to a Western invasion that would attract jihadi militants and cause an        Iraq-style quagmire.

But analysts say Khartoum objected to U.N. troops because it feared the soldiers would arrest any officials or militia leaders likely to be indicted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court.

problem is, the west -- well, jews and christians -- have been dealing ruthlessly with muslims since at least the 1950s. if it was gonna work it seems like it would have worked by now.


Ruthless.  You keep using that word.  I do not think that it means what you think it means.

If Western civilization had dealt "ruthlessly" with Arab (Muslim or otherwise) tribalism, the war would have been over within 24 hours of the commencement of ruthlessness, and the planet would probably be the more peaceful for it.

The ruthless solution to the problem involves genocide, and (as you correctly point out) the disparity of force in the region is such that it can be accomplished by means of conventional arms just as easily as with nuclear arms.

During the Cold War, Israel was a US client state, and most of the Muslim states neighboring it were  client states of the USSR.  Since the end of the Cold War, there's no deterrent in the form of a nuclear adversary, and both the Yanks and the Israelis have shown incredible restraint. 

Hot off the wires...

In Darfur, while the Black Muslims are not busy rebelling and fighting with the Arab Muslims, they are busy raping and torturing the women of rival Black Muslim tribes.

Note the absence of Israeli, American, Brit, Aussie, Russian, french or any "Western" manipulation or repression. (Insert wistfully hopeful reason to blame this on The West here________________________________)

well, another common element is, of course, grinding poverty. darfur is suffering from a drought and famine, if i'm not mistaken. rape and murder tend to prosper in such inhospitable conditions, regardless of what particular sky pixie the inhabitants happen to worship.

but if the muslims are killing each other, why do we need to insert ourselves in there and repress them? to kill them in order to prevent them from killing each other? i'm not really getting my head around this.

and i'm also having trouble accepting the idea that we should be taking lessons in the conduct of foreign affairs from china. but maybe the republicans would like to make this part of their platform in 2008, i would welcome such a move. ;D

Ruthless.  You keep using that word.  I do not think that it means what you think it means.

If Western civilization had dealt "ruthlessly" with Arab (Muslim or otherwise) tribalism, the war would have been over within 24 hours of the commencement of ruthlessness, and the planet would probably be the more peaceful for it.

The ruthless solution to the problem involves genocide, and (as you correctly point out) the disparity of force in the region is such that it can be accomplished by means of conventional arms just as easily as with nuclear arms.

During the Cold War, Israel was a US client state, and most of the Muslim states neighboring it were  client states of the USSR.  Since the end of the Cold War, there's no deterrent in the form of a nuclear adversary, and both the Yanks and the Israelis have shown incredible restraint. 
well, there's ruthless and then there's wholesale slaughter. i think this is rather a case of semantics -- could the west be MORE ruthless? sure. but how many tons of bombs were dropped on iraq in the first gulf war? how many lebanese died in operation iron fist? whatever "restraint" you cite (and as far as restraint goes, i'm not very impressed) is i think the governments in the west measuring their actions out of the pressure from their domestic populations, not because the military or administration has any concern for lives in the arab world -- as we see on this thread, the pro-war contingent would just as soon massacre everyone in the region under the unspeakably misguided notion that they're not quite full-fledged human beings anyway and wiping out millions of innocents would lead to a more peaceful world somehow. you want a dangerous ideology? look no further than that.

well, another common element is, of course, grinding poverty. darfur is suffering from a drought and famine, if i'm not mistaken. rape and murder tend to prosper in such inhospitable conditions, regardless of what particular sky pixie the inhabitants happen to worship.

but if the muslims are killing each other, why do we need to insert ourselves in there and repress them? to kill them in order to prevent them from killing each other? i'm not really getting my head around this.

and i'm also having trouble accepting the idea that we should be taking lessons in the conduct of foreign affairs from china. but maybe the republicans would like to make this part of their platform in 2008, i would welcome such a move. ;D

He's on a tear, you're not gonna talk him down!*
The more you try to say it's not just because they're Muslims (Moslems), the more Lyricboy is gonna say it IS because they're Muslims (Moslems)! Contentiousness promotes stubbornness and vice versa.

*could apply to either Lyricboy or me! I mean LB here.
;D

I blame testosterone,  I am sooooooo tired of testosterone.

I blame testosterone,  I am sooooooo tired of testosterone.

Testosterone is a big problem...but it's not the only problem.  For instance, I've watched how both male and female bullies operate. Girl-to-girl, woman-to-woman bullying is worse than what males do to one another. Female bullying is far more calculated, persistent, and cruel.
That's why I don't believe it when people say "if women ran the world, there would be no war." Please--no menstrual cycle joke!  Robin Williams used that joke in his routine 20 years ago, and it was hackneyed even then.

Helen Roper: If women ran the world, there would be no war.
Stanley Roper: Yeah, all the countries would just nag each other to death!

No, that's not it either. Female aggression is woefully underestimated.

However, I think what Danoota is alluding to is the scapegoat phenomenon in world politics. Might as well blame it all on testosterone, eh!

Tonight I caught Glenn Beck gleefully welcoming World War III as he condemned Hezbollah for trying to impose Islam on the rest of the world. I never said groups like Hezbollah had beneficent intentions. The difference between Iran and the United States is political, military, and economic power. America has it, Iran does not. If the roles were reversed, Christian America would behave just like Islamic Iran. Humanity has a responsibility to transcend the primate power instincts that still rule it. We can and we must. The gorillas, the baboons, the chimps, and the orangutans don't have atomic weapons. Humans do. The primates cannot wipe out life as we know it when they start beating on one another. We can.

The Bushies are desperate to hang on to the power they did not earn, cannot handle, and do not deserve. They have upped the ante from scaring the hell out of us about the "war on terror" to now scaring the hell out of us about World War III. In the past hour I have seen two propaganda ministers for the corporate-fascist government, Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly, announce we are already in World War III. The difference between the "war on terror" and "world war III" is the "war on terror" does not exist. It's just a coverup for American aggression.  However, American aggression just might precipitate "world war III" for real. If we really do find ourselves in "world war III," O'Reilly and Beck won't be swaggering anymore, they'll be hiding under their beds!
::)

problem is, the west -- well, jews and christians -- have been dealing ruthlessly with muslims since at least the 1950s. if it was gonna work it seems like it would have worked by now.


Oh yes, you are so right.  And we were so wrong to treat them as we did in former Yugoslavia, or Cyprus.  And we horribly mistreated them in the 1980's when they were fighting the Soviet Union.

Myself, I do not give a damn what color, religion, or ethnicity somebody is.  All I care about is if they are a threat to me or anybody else.  If they live peacefully with their neighbors and leave everybody else alone, I wish nothing but good for them.  If they decide that it is their role in life to convert the world by the sword to their own belief (be it religion, politics, or society), then I see them as a threat.

And there are a lot of Islamic and Islamic based nations that have not been causing problems.  You rarely hear of groups of terrorists from Turkey going around killing people.  There are members of groups from countries like Kuwait, Algeria, Morocco, and Quatar causing problems, their governments treat them as criminals and not as some kind of legitimate Jihad organization.

For the most part, the Abrahamic religions (Jewish. Christian, Isamlic, in order of age) tend to be peacefull.  However, some people instead use them to cause violence and death in the name of God.  I am just as cautious of Fundamentalist Christians as I am about Fundamentalist Muslims.  I view any form as fundamentalism with extreme caution, since for the most part the members want to try and remake the world/society into their image of a utopia.  And the end result tends to be either the forced conversion or elimination of anybody that does not agree with their idea of paradise.

Myself, I do not give a damn what color, religion, or ethnicity somebody is.  All I care about is if they are a threat to me or anybody else.  If they live peacefully with their neighbors and leave everybody else alone, I wish nothing but good for them.  If they decide that it is their role in life to convert the world by the sword to their own belief (be it religion, politics, or society), then I see them as a threat.
That's why we don't let jokers like George Dubya run the joint.
::)

And there are a lot of Islamic and Islamic based nations that have not been causing problems.  You rarely hear of groups of terrorists from Turkey going around killing people. 

We-hell, you'll have to ask the Armenians about that!
:P

We-hell, you'll have to ask the Armenians about that!
:P


That was almost 100 years ago, under a totally different Government.  I am well aware of the Armenian Genocide, and I grew up in a largely Armenian area of LA.  I even remember when some thugs killed the Turkish consoulate in Los Angeles.  Most of the Armenian community was disgusted with it.

That genocide occured under the Ottoman Government, between 1915 and 1917.  That government does not even exist anymore, and Armenia is now it's own nation.  I no longer hold the Turks today responsible for it then I hold the German government responsible for the Holocost, or the Brittish government responsible for the Opium Wars.  Horrible things that happened over a generation ago should be left in the past.  Dwelling on them all these years later only increases the misery and bloodshed.

We should not forget them, but we also should not try to "pay back" for events that happened in the past.

That was almost 100 years ago, under a totally different Government.  I am well aware of the Armenian Genocide, and I grew up in a largely Armenian area of LA.  I even remember when some thugs killed the Turkish consoulate in Los Angeles.  Most of the Armenian community was disgusted with it.

That genocide occured under the Ottoman Government, between 1915 and 1917.  That government does not even exist anymore, and Armenia is now it's own nation.  I no longer hold the Turks today responsible for it then I hold the German government responsible for the Holocost, or the Brittish government responsible for the Opium Wars.  Horrible things that happened over a generation ago should be left in the past.  Dwelling on them all these years later only increases the misery and bloodshed.

We should not forget them, but we also should not try to "pay back" for events that happened in the past.


I know that. I knew you knew that too. I said it for levity.

I can't take the analyses on this thread seriously. As circumstances deteriorate, I expect to hear more and more "Israel good, Arabs bad" mantra from the American press. I know a fellow who is a Jewish Israeli native living in Haifa. He tells me he's more frightened of the American Zionists and the Israeli government's aggression than he is of frikkin' Hezbolla. Arie's 63 years old, was born in a kibbutz before the partition. The last thing the old Zionists wanted was Ariel Sharon, Moshe Dyan, and to become a satellite state of the American empire.

I just hope my friend doesn't get killed on his way to work.

I can't take the analyses on this thread seriously. As circumstances deteriorate, I expect to hear more and more "Israel good, Arabs bad" mantra from the American press. I know a fellow who is a Jewish Israeli native living in Haifa. He tells me he's more frightened of the American Zionists and the Israeli government's aggression than he is of frikkin' Hezbolla. Arie's 63 years old, was born in a kibbutz before the partition. The last thing the old Zionists wanted was Ariel Sharon, Moshe Dyan, and to become a satellite state of the American empire.


Personally, I have no problem with the response Israel has been taking.  It may be a tad extreme, but they are also facing an enemy which has consistantly stated that they have no right to exist, and that they should all be removed from the face of the Earth.  I can't remember ever hearing Israel saying anything even remotely like that.

For 50 years now, most of the nations around Israel have been plotting and planning for their destruction.  With all the conflicts they have been involved in, it is no wonder that they tend to jump in with both feet first, and then to wait until after the dust settles to back off.

This current conflict all started with the attack of an Israeli military outpost on Israeli soil.  It might be one thing of the Soldiers were in the Palistinian Authority, at least in that case there would be some kind of claim that they were there illegally.

However, the outpost attacked and the soldier kidnapped were unquestioniably on Israeli soil.  That makes the event in and of itself an act of war.  It is no different then if the US Government attacked a Canadian border post and took a prisoner.  Crossing an international border and taking a hostage is an act of war.

That is how Israel is taking it, and that is also how they are reacting.  If the soldier had been turned over a few days afterwards, Hammas would have made their point, and it would largely have died down.  Instead, they choose to escalate the attacks, and to increase the attacks to civilian areas.  It was only then that Israel moved forward and progressed until they are now invading Lebanon, just like they did 24 years ago.

In fact, the "Arab Nations" in the area themselves are conflicted in what is going on.  Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, UAE, and Jordan are condemning the attacks by Hezbollah and the kidnapping of the soldiers.

On the other side, you have Syria, Iran, Algeria, Sudan, and Lebanon that are claiming that the actions by Hezbollah are correct, because it is the way to force Israel to negotiate with them.  Of course, these are the the same nations that insist that Israel does not even have a right to exist.

If Hammas and Hezbollah really want peace, all they have to do is to stop fighting.  If they return the soldiers and resume negotiations, I am sure that Israel would pull back and let the UN try and restore order.  And if Lebanon would get serious about not letting terrorists to use their country as a staging area, they would not be invaded in cases like this.

I do not blame Muslims for what is happening.  I blame militant Islamic Fundamentalists, who want to destroy a nation and religion.  And in the end, there is no way to negotiate with them.

Poor Muslims. Some act like idiots thinking they